Do You Think That Democrats Were Lying on WMDs As Well?

[BamaLefty]

Every time I read statements like this, I want to change my party affiliation from Dem to Green or Independent. Seriously, it irks me big time.

Do you think that spineless Democrats were lying right with the Fuhrer Bu$h?

Or can this stuff be debunked? I don't know... it sickens me. I get so pissed off when I read this trash I don't know what to do! :shrug:


What are your thoughts?


"e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY) , Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA) , Jan. 23. 2003.

[justinsb]

1. Yes I think they were lying as well.

All of the information was out there for anyone who wanted to look.

[BamaLefty]

2. My Thoughts Exactly.

Funny how WE were right.

Air America WAS RIGHT.

Why did they do this do their country? :grr:

[justinsb]

4. They did it out of short-term political expediency

The polls at that time showed that the American people believed there were WMD's and terrorist ties (despite all evidence to the contrary) so they "believed" it too. Hopefully it will cost them in the long run though. I, for one, won't vote for anyone who supported the War in Iraq (I'm in Canada now , but I still vote absentee).

[blm]

6. Wrong. If you don't know the context you will almost always be wrong.

Check my post below.

[fberknm]

16. Isn't it funny how Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy have forgotten!?

I liked the comment, good cop, bad cop, same payroll. I think this is why I am registered independent.

And then there is Rush, et al, reminding us all of every democrat statement affirming the WMDs in Iraq, as if to say "The democrats were wrong too, so its okay".

Well, it isn't okay. The question is, who can you support? Every democrat with a chance of winning the White House supported the WMD argument.

But even with Air America, they refuse to talk about the dems that were wrong. They talk constantly about the republicans who said WMD this, WMD that, but they conveniently forget to mention all the comments from democrats saying the same thing.

Whether the democrats lied or the republicans lied is of no consequence at this point. I am irritated how the dems have tried to avoid all responsibility for this, conveniently forgetting past statements or trying to avoid all responsibility by claiming that they fell hook, line and sinker for W's rhetoric. Give me a break.

I recall a lesson from a teacher of long ago, "Ideals don't fail, people do". Alot of people failed on this one.

In any event, I firmly believe that it would not have mattered whether anyone thought there were WMD's in Iraq, whether they wanted to rid the nation of Saddam Hussein, or whether they wanted to fight the terror war overseas. W was looking to pick a fight with Saddam, he wanted to avenge his father's failure to remove Saddam, and he found a willing nation.

W had plans to go in from day one of his term.

fwh

[mnmoderatedem]

33. I think you nailed it

Dems thought voting against military action in Iraq were afraid it would hurt their chances at the White House. That happened to a number of Dems who voted against military action in 1991.

edit: spelling

[OKthatsIT]

42. If we knew Bush was lying about the UN Inspectors

rushing the inspectors out of Iraq...with their job nearly complete(bing) and then Kerry and Kennedy say, "Only if you use diplomatic approaches first...blah blah.

It was obvious what Bush was doing..then Kerry and Kennedy go silent during the invasion, just waiting for the moment to spring on Bush with, 'We are the good guys, vote for Kerry'

you know???? I have had very ittle respect for Kennedy since.

[CWebster]

74. Kennedy voted against the invasion

and he tried to get Kerry to join him in proposing an ammended resolution--but Kerry declined--because he saw it as an opportunity to toot himself as a war hero who was better equipted to wage the mission against the evil Saddam.

Kennedy can be criticized for supporting Kerry for prez, but Kennedy voted against the Invasion.

[gulfcoastliberal]

63. This sort of thing is why I switched to "I" from "D"

The DLC is working hard to transform the dems into repukes, and they have had great success. It's sad.

[elehhhhna]

3. good cop/bad cop all on the same payroll

[blm]

5. The 1998 statement was AFTER Scott Ritter testified that Iraq had WMDs.

The reason for the urgency to deal with Iraq was the ramped up efforts at the time of the GOP working to collapse the UN by portraying them as irrelevant since they refuse to enforce their own resolutions and were using Iraq as the example.

Kerry, Clinton and Gore's efforts to get tough with Iraq were actually to get the UN to show some resolve and deal with Saddam to get the inspectors back in.

The last evidence they had was that there used to be WMDs.

The best answer when dealing with this question is that ANY Democratic president would have allowed the weapons inspectors to do their job, which would mean that no military action would have occurred.

Big difference.

[wuushew]

9. Weapon disarmament should never have been linked to the Gulf War

Iraq vacated Kuwait following the coalition military action. Why can't Iraq manufacture and possess its own weapons systems? We don't attack Pakistan, Israel or ourselves over such hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is the the powers that be decided that Saddam could no longer be a useful pawn who sat on the second largest reserves of oil in the world.

[BamaLefty]

10. What About Kerry's Statements?

In 2003.

Can those be justified?

[blm]

13. Yes. The weapons inspectors had barely started at the time.

The last official evidence he ever heard was Ritter testifying in 98 that Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons.

So, name me ONE Democratic president that would have gone to war WITHOUT allowing a full weapons inspections to prove war was innecessary first?

[BamaLefty]

17. You Are Really Helping Me Here

See, in 1998 I was in the 5th grade. So, I don't really know much about the recent history of our conflicts with Iraq.

I appreciate you explaining it to me. The MSM sure wouldn't.

I'm a Senior now btw.

[bloom]

30. I don't think there is any excuse for them going along with it

2002 or later.

At that point they are complicit, IMO.

I don't care what their political asperations were/are - there is no excuse.

[blm]

36. They didn't go along with war, they voted for a RESOLUTION which

would also have PREVENTED war if administered honestly.

What Democrat would ignore weapons inspectors and invade without proof that war was the only option?

[GreenArrow]

72. no it wouldn't have

Say Bush Inc. agrees to more time to let inspectors work. Inspectors work, but find nothing. Saddam complies. Bush Inc. continues to insist that Sadaam has weapons and fact that none have been found indicates that he is not complying. War proceeds as planned. There was never a standard of proof, hence the ever changing rationales. The whole scheme was clear Bullshit from the get go.

[blm]

75. Kerry said that France and Germany were working on Saddam to step down

right before Bush invaded. So, the IWR and the weapons inspections were working as intended, but, Bush didn't WANT them to work, so he rushed into the invasion.

[GreenArrow]

77. even Bush gave Saddam 48 hours --

or some such cowboy crap -- to get out of Dodge. Saddam declined. Just because the French and Germans were working on Saddam doesn't mean he would have left. And why should he have had to? Even assuming he did step down, the US still would have sent an occupation force to oversee the transition. Would have been less bloody, perhaps, but bloody enough, and the result would have been the same as what we are seeing now, only at a slower pace. I suppose that was what Kerry means when he refers to "a right way and a wrong way" to prosecute this war. Unfortunately, this war was wrong under any of the given justifications, cynically, murderously, and cold-bloodedly wrong.

[G_j]

12. you do know that Ritter

gave Kerry his report that there were no WMD and Kerry never responded. I have posted the link to this for you before. I don't have time to try to dig up again.

They should have pushed hard for Ritter to testify.

[blm]

15. He gave it to his office in Oct. 2002. Official UN weapons inspectors

needed to go in. That was Kerry's stance.

Go ahead and say that Kerry is no different than Bush and explain how President Kerry would have done exactly the same thing...or President Gore or Clinton.....the same as Bush and not allowed the weapons inspectors to determine whether military action was necessary. Prove it using their records.

[G_j]

20. umm

I won't go ahead and say those things, because I don't believe that that Kerry is no different than Bush etc.

I do wish though, that Ritter had been brought before Congress to testify. It a huge leap from this to procliaming that "Kerry is no different than Bush."

[wuushew]

21. Clinton could and did take military action against Iraq

I don't why he justified such actions since Iraq wasn't doing a damn thing to ANY OTHER COUNTRY during the 1990's.

Mainstream Democrats are highly supportive of neo-imperial foreign policy and its aims.

[blm]

26. No. It goes back to enforcing the UN resolution at the time when the GOP

was doing its damndest to get rid of the UN.

Clinton's action should be seen as part of the enforcement of the UN resolution and in the context of a political movement working to discredit him AND the UN at the time.

[wuushew]

27. Dropping bombs is IMHO equivalent to war

the U.N. resolutions you refer to speak of disapproval and unhappiness in the international community regarding concerns over Iraqi WMD programs. It seems dropping bombs besides being illegal would take a vote of the Security Council. Was Operation Desert Fox legitimate in your opinion?

Resolutions regarding Iraq

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

[blm]

29. I didn't want it. But, I can see the pressure to preserve the UN and its

relevancy was also a factor that a president needed to consider. Even Kucinich was for action in this case, if events warranted action.

[blm]

24. No way to schedule Ritter to testify before the vote.

Bush already had enough votes to pass the IWR, and it was up to savvier Dems to get more guidelines put into it where they could. Like not allowing further actions in Iran and Syria like Bush wanted. And putting the weapons inspectors in which Bush DIDN'T want.

[barb162]

7. Dems are either totally fucking stupid OR they felt they had to look

strong on Iraq as Bush was equating Iraq with terrorism OR as Hillary said (to the effect) let's get this over with, behind us and get on to more important issues. It is very easy for the pugs to play the standard democrats like Kerry, Hillary, etal.

[blm]

11. I'd say few people understand statements made out of context unless they

have total recall of when the statement was made and what essential policies were involved at the time.

[barb162]

14. Maybe we should be writing less about statements and more about

their actual votes (though the OP might disagree). These statements supplied by the OP actually went along with their damned votes FOR the damned war

[blm]

19. It was a resolution that would have PREVENTED war if its guidelines were

followed.

Bush did not implement the IWR honestly. In fact, Bonifaz is using Bush's failure to honestly implement the IWR as reason for impeachment.

It's foolish to blame Dems for voting for the IWR when the REAL CULPRIT is the president who failed to implement its guidelines.

If you fall into the trap that the IWR was a blank check, then Bush did nothing wrong. But, it wasn't a blank check...there were guidelines...Bush did not adhere to the guidelines honestly.

Blame the iWR and you let Bush off the hook.

[barb162]

23. I think that by the time the vote was taken in Congress everyone

in COngress knew Bush was itching for a fight with Iraq. They gave Bush the money and okay to do it. Guidelines are immaterial when dealing with Bush and I think every member of Congress understood that. Which dems went before Congress asking for a new vote to rescind the original authority when they noticed things getting out of hand? WHich Dem(s) spoke out against it? They were all on that bandwagon to go to war and look tough to the voters.

[Stirk]

25. There's another context you're ignoring.

When the IWR was signed, it was very clear that the Bush Administration was determined to invade, and there were already (muffled) protests coming from the intelligence community about many of the Bush Administration claims (Atta's supposed meeting with an Iraqi agent in eastern Europe, for instance).

It was clear what they intended, and signing the IWR was a way for the Congress to casually step out of the way and shirk it's duty.

[blm]

28. Not till after the IWR vote. Knight Ridder carried the story but few other

papers did and NO broadcast media even reported it. Even some Knight Ridder papers chose to bury it in their back pages at the time. Few put in on the front page. It was NOT widely known at the time.

But, the only definitive answer was to let weapons inspectors make that determination.

ANY Democrat would have given the weapons inspectors the time needed to avoid war. Even Lieberman.

[Stirk]

35. This is an article from the LA Times- on Oct. 12 2002.

ABout a week before the IWR was signed.
--------------------------
(snip)
But intelligence sources say the pressure on CIA analysts has been unrelenting in recent months, much of it coming from Iraq hawks including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz.

CIA officials who brief Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on Iraq routinely return to the agency with a long list of complaints and demands for new analysis or shifts in emphasis, sources said.

(snip)

But White House hawks have shown a tendency for stretching the case against Iraq. Wolfowitz and others have clung to claims that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, the Czech capital, last year even though the CIA has viewed the report with deep skepticism.

Rumsfeld's recent remark that the United States has "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Hussein struck many in the intelligence community as an exaggerated assessment of the available evidence.
(snip)
-------------------------

There were already reports in major papers like the LA Times that the Administration was determined to invade. They were buried, yes. But it was clear to anyone paying attention- and I think we should be able to expect our representatives to pay attention.

[blm]

37. IWR was Oct. 9

If I recall correctly. I may be of by a day or two.

I was highly aware of what all the news outlets were reporting at the time.

And it didn't make IWR a bad vote since the guidelines IN the IWR should have prevented war with any HONEST president.

Blame the IWR and you let Bush off the hook for not administering the IWR honestly.

[barb162]

41. I saw plenty of stories before the vote was taken that Cheney

was visiting the CIA quite often, with the implication he was pressuring analysts to phony up their info.

[blm]

43. Knight Ridder had the story Oct 8.

And many buried it deep. Most papers didn't carry the story.

And it also is no reason why the IWR shouldn't have been adhered to by Bush. The IWR would have been a perfect resolution to prevent war if Bush had been an honest president.

Blame the IWR and you shift the blame for war to the IWR when it belongs to a president who did not administer the IWR honestly.

[barb162]

44. The IWR was not a good resolution...it came from the dishonest

prez. It was clearly the first step to ratchet up his going to war and everyone knew he wanted like hell to go to war.

[blm]

47. And yet so many blame the IWR instead of Bush.

.

[wuushew]

45. What war do you speak of?

Was Saddam planning on attacking someone? The economy and military of Iraq were destroyed by 2002. I fail to see how raising a dangerous and unchecked bluff somehow reduces the chances of armed conflict in the Middle East.

If Bush had gone his own way without Congress the possiblity of him being impeached right now would be much much greater.

[barb162]

46. If Anyone read Woodward's book on Bush going to this war,

it is totally one zillion % clear Bush was trying everything he could to do it as fast as he could. Powell, Armitage, Richard Clarke, etal and a few others were trying to stop the process. Everyone else got on the bandwagon, including most Democrats in Congress. What a catastrophe for this country, Iraq and the world

[blm]

48. Wrong. Bush was prepared to go in using the original UN resolution which

actually would have given him a steadier legal leg to stand on.

So, since he was going to do it anyway, better to have a new resolution that gave some guidelines to meet. The weapons inspections was a big deal and any HONEST president would never have gone to war without the evidence that it was necesssary from legitimate weapons inspections.

[scarletwoman]

50. "...if Bush had been an honest president."

Yeah, right.

Your whole defense of the Dems is based on what the IWR "would have meant IF..."

Well how farking stupid does anyone have to be to not already KNOW that Bush was not and IS NOT an "honest president"!

Your defense of the Dem leadership is predicated on the assertion that omigosh, who could have KNOWN that Bush wouldn't act in good faith!?!?

That's a pretty piss-poor defense. If my party leaders can't see an obvious lying asshole out to manipulate public opinion and the political process to get his way, then just what farking good ARE they?

Your argument just confirms that the Dems are either clueless (and therefore useless in defending our Republic) or outright complicit. Great argument...

Feh...

sw

[blm]

52. No, it's not. The point is that IWR is not to blame. Clueless people

intent on blaming Democrats blame the IWR as if it's responsible for the invasion. Would any of you be happier if Bush went in to Iraq based on the original UN resolution as he intended?

Blame the IWR. Blame the Dems...but technically, it's still wrong


AND

It lets Bush off the hook.

[scarletwoman]

53. Yes. As a matter of fact I WOULD be happier.

I'M not the one letting Bush off the hook. The Dem leadership has done a fine job of that without any help from me.

You write: "Would any of you be happier if Bush went in to Iraq based on the original UN resolution as he intended?"

Yep. Would have been A-OK with me. Let the responsibilty fall TOTALLY on Bush. Then the Dems could say -- as the American public gets more and more uneasy about the whole debacle -- "Well, we TRIED to forestall this." "We TRIED to uphold the Constitution (only Congress has the power to declare war), but the Bush White House was determined to plunge ahead."

But no. They rushed in to give the lying asshole cover in order to save their own political skins -- NOT to serve their country, but to preserve their positions of power and privilege in Washington.

sw

[blm]

54. That's crazy, because THAT would have been a steadier legal leg for him

to lean on. Now, with the IWR, he can be held more accountable BECAUSE he violated its guidelines, and the DSM makes that clear.

Bush had to send to congress an official letter explaining that he still determined Iraq to be a threat to national security AFTER the weapons inspections.

Without the IWR, that letter never would have happened. Maybe you need to read Bonifaz' testimony at the Conyers hearing. His case for impeachment of Bush is based on the restrictions set in the IWR.

When people make ignorant claims that Bush was given a blank check or there were no restrictions for Bush in the IWR, they are helping spread a lie favorable to Bush and Rove who spun the IWR as if it gave Bush what he wanted, when it actually restricted him more than he wanted.

[wuushew]

55. Section 3 of the IWR sounds pretty blank check to me

In the Obi-Wan certain point of view depends on the defintion of is is way.



SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[blm]

57. Then you and Bonifaz read it differently. I side with Bonifaz.

Blank check was a Rove meme to spin IWR into a total victory for Bush and so the actual restrictions would be ignored.

Fools, especially in the media, obliged.

[ultraist]

64. WRONG! Byrd coined the term "blank check" in opposition to the IWR

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1004-02.htm

Byrd Asks Senate to Deny Bush Blank Check
by Paul J. Nyden

In one of his most impassioned speeches during his 50 years in Congress, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., pleaded with fellow senators on Thursday not to issue a “blank check” to President George W. Bush.

“The president is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms. But it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision,” Byrd said.

Quoting Roman historian Titus Livius, Byrd called Bush “blind and improvident....“As sure as the sun rises in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.”

The “bellicose stance” taken in Bush’s resolution, sent to the Senate 33 days before Election Day, is motivated by campaign politics, Byrd argued. “Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.” Immediately after Byrd sat down, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said, “He has been a voice of sanity and reason. He has been a voice the American people wanted to hear....CON'T

[blm]

67. I know Byrd used it, but it was propogated by the media pundits. Name

one media pundit that uses talking points from Byrd or any other Democrat.

And fer chrissakes, stop nitpicking incidentals. The overriding FACT is that the IWR would have prevented war if it was administered with integity.

Blame the IWR instead of Bush for not implementing it honestly, and you help coverup for him.

There were RESTRICTIONS in that resolution and Bush knew it. Rove successfully got the media to equate a vote for the IWR as full support for Bush and war. Too many Dems spread that spin and never bothered holding Bush to the restrictions.

Too bad. Ignorance ends up hurting the wrong party every time.

[scarletwoman]

58. The reality is, the IRW did NOT work as you say it "should have".

"...it actually restricted him more than he wanted." Oh really? How "restricted" did he end up being?

It's all very well to invoke the fine print, but as far as the perception of it goes, it looked -- and still looks -- like a "blank check" to invade Iraq.

You can parse the fine points all you want -- something the Dem leadership has NOT done, btw -- but the PERCEPTION of Bush being given permission to invade Iraq if that's what he decided to do is what counts.

The Repugs already KNOW that PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING. Of course it's not fair, it's not right, it's not "fact-based" -- but it IS the reality of our present circumstance of a dumbed-down, tuned-out citizenry in a country where the mainstream media kow-tows to the power of the State.

If NO ONE in a position of power or influence challenges the prevailing assumptions of "conventional wisdom", then "We, the People" have NO advocates.

The Dem leadership has failed miserably to advocate for "We, the People". For me, that's the bottom line. The Conyers hearing is a lovely thing, of course. But it's just so much pissing in the wind of the massive propaganda machine that is the bush (mal)administration.

Dems have aided and abetted and acceded ever since the 2000 (s)election. If they had stood on principle from the beginning -- like supporting the Congressional Black Caucus when they challenged the Florida vote -- THEN maybe they would have a leg to stand on.

As it is, they have capitulated and enabled on down the line. Fuck 'em.

The Conyers hearings aren't even a tiny blip in the public consciousness. Not when the corporate media machine can simply ignore them. There are NO negative consequences in today's climate for ignoring/diminishing/dismissing/mocking anything done by the Dems -- or haven't you noticed?

Having failed to raise hell when it really might have counted -- when public opinion was still fluid and uncertain -- there's not a hell of alot that can be done to make up ground now. Now we just wait to see if the assholes in power self-destruct -- no thanks to the go-along Dems.

sw

[blm]

69. Kerry and others DID bring it up alot...Bush rushed to war without letting

the weapons inspectors finish their job.

Kerry only said it about 500 times so I can understand how the media missed talking about it.

[scarletwoman]

86. Sure, AFTER they had already voted "yes" on the Resolution.

My original point still stands: Anyone with half a brain could plainly see that bush was hell-bent on having his "war". If the Dems who voted for the IWR were so stupid that they thought they could trust the craven little asswipe to "do the right thing", then they are too stupid to be of any use to our democracy.

sw

[CWebster]

76. Well, one Dem in particular...

some would go to jail to give cover.

[scarletwoman]

91. I'd like to respond to your post,

but I honestly have no idea what you meant by what you wrote. Sorry.

sw

[KnowerOfLogic]

61. EVERYONE KNEW that IWR was the congressional go-ahead for war.

[blm]

73. Because that's how Rove instructed the media to play it. It was a LIE.

A lie constructed so that when Bush rushed into war without following the guidelines of the IWR, then the blame would be on those who voted for the IWR and Bush could fake that he went in BECAUSE the IWR compelled him to, which is exactly what they did.

Bush gets off the hook thanks to all those stupid people and media who failed to note the restrictions on Bush in the IWR.

[GreenArrow]

78. the blame could easily have been avoided

by voting against IWR to begin with. Bush gets all the blame then, and he gets the lion's share of it even now. Still doesn't mean there isn't blame for others.

[blm]

81. If those people are ignorant enough to blame the IWR, then so be it.

But, it's foolish to put the blame on a resolution which results in taking the focus off the RESTRICTIONS that were in that resolution, making Bush the ONLY person to blame.

Too many Dems bought the spin.

[GreenArrow]

82. there were no effective restrictions

Bush fundamentally had first word and last. And now...

A. As Is:

Given politician votes for IWR, makes public show of support for Commander in Chief, either with reservations or wholeheartedly.

Mission fails, miserably.

Attempt to blame leader for failure of mission.

Leader exclaims, "But you voted for it Senator."

-- or --

B. Could have been:

Given politician votes against IWR, criticizes plan, CIC.

Mission fails, miserably.

Blame attaches rightfully to leader and those who supported leader's plan.

Opposing politician gains stature and has (small) satisfaction of knowing that he/she was right.

[blm]

84. Bonifaz disagrees with you. Bush should be held accountable for

not acting faithfully to the IWR. He declared ON HIS OWN that Iraq was a threat to our security AFTER weapons inspections proved we were NOT in danger. He wrote it in his official letter as per the IWR requirement.

Instead of focusing on that point, people let Bush get away with his offense using the LIE that the IWR let him do it.

[GOTV]

8. I don't know...

... what the intelligence might have been in 1998. It might have pointed to a dangerous Iraq.

In 2003 the intelligence included 5 years of additional info including the input from inspectors who were on the ground without the restrictions that hampered previous inspection teams.

The picture was much clearer then.

But I don't think that anyone but the president, his cabinet and their contacts in the CIA saw the whole picture. I don't think even congress sees everything that the president sees.

So it's hard to make that call for me.

[mmonk]

18. Yes

and maybe some speculation by me too democrats emulating those they were envying.

[Just Me]

22. An advocacy against WMDs is NOT NOT NOT a position for war.

Please, do not allow nuances escape you.

Please, do not allow the games of politics confuse you.

Please, do not allow normal human gullibility and vulnerability (which even the most powerful leaders possess) distract you from the abusive bastards in charge.

Please.

[NewJeffCT]

31. In regards to the last two

didn't they get their intelligence from the White House?

[booley]

32. some may have been, others...

hard to say...

yes we had lots of evidence that iraq wasn't the threat that shrub made it out to be. The politicos response ot this was always.."but we have more evidence you haven't seen and can't se because it's super secret. So trust us"

But what was this evidence? We know now a lot of it was forgeries (like the Niger documents and the report supposedly from M-6). and what about the office of special plans, which was going over stuff the CIA had thrown away in order to make a better case for war? What about Bolton who we now know was holding back evidence that would have weakened shrub's case for war?

How do we even know what those Dems saw and how credible it was? or that the shrubbery hadn't gotten it it first?

The dems that voted for the war are at least somewhat resposnable..both for what they did then and their actions later in allowing this travesty to continue.

But the final responsibility belongs ot the Shrubbery and they should pay the highest price.

Too often I hear that the dems thought Saddam had WMDs so Shrub is somehow less guilty of lying and war mongering. not to say that is what you are doing here. But the freepers do use this same position to spin it so Shrub isn't guilty of war mongering and lying.

[mattclearing]

34. A lot were, but Dean wasn't one of them.

Something for the Dean haters to remember.

Sucks to be right sometimes.

[blm]

38. I don't hate Dean. But, I would urge you to read his statement released

the day Bush invaded. As I recall he states that no one was in doubt of the need to disarm Saddam even though they didn't agree it had to be now...pretty much the same as Kerry when you strip it down to its essence.

Both wanted, as most Dems wanted, the weapons inspections to work FIRST.

[mattclearing]

39. True.

I'm sure even he was surprised at just how weak the WMD claims turned out to be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Lying through their ambitious politician teeth.

I hold them equally responsible for the bloodshed in Iraq. Any politician, of any party, that supports the continued occupation of Iraq will not get my vote.

[autorank]

49. bamaLeftie, You are a very bright young man.

Excellent thread.

Of course they all knew! The 20 or so who opposed it would never have opposed invading Iraq if there were (a) known nuclear weapons and (b) known intent on the part of Saddam to use it or provide it to terrorists.

Soooo...that means that the rest of the DEMS, the ones voting yes heard the same rumors, had the same information as the 20 saying no. Why wouldn't the nay voters share it. Nevertheless, they voted for it. Totally bogus!

Can we trust them (I'll vote for them but really, on this one, they were Republicans)

[LynnTheDem]

51. They wanted UN weapons inspections continued. NOT an invasion.

BUSH KICKED THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS OUT OF IRAQ and rushed our troops to "PREEMPTIVE STRIKE" to "SPREAD DEMOCRACY" with our troops short on FOOD and WATER and RIFLES and AMMO and BODY ARMOR and...

[Zorra]

56. How did Dennis Kucinich know for a fact that Iraq had no WMD?:

The Bloodstained Path
by U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich
The Progressive

November 2002issue

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.04D.kucinich.path.htm

Why didn't anyone listen to him? Is it because he refuses to take corporate money, because he is a "liberal" or what?

I never have understood this.

[scarletwoman]

59. Because the Dem leadership was more concerned with keeping campaign donors

than with the Truth.

sw

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

85. Boxer knew too. Meanhwhile both Clinton's kept saying there were.

I think Bill Clinton was either upholding the myth, or he was being lied to by the Intelligence agencies.

Heck! With the research I did as just me I knew there weren't any.

[KnowerOfLogic]

60. Yes. It's a disgrace and a shame that dems will not live down for a long

time.

[LSK]

62. some things you forget

1. In December, 1998, Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq because Saddam was not cooperating. Many believe these attacks whiped out Saddams WMD capabilities.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

2. www.downingstreetmemo.com

3. The IWR was working in Iraq. Saddam was cooperating like never before. Dems signed the IWR as a political tool to make Saddam cooperate with inspectors and it was working. How was Kerry to know at the time that Bush would just say "ok, time to invade now".

4. Google the date of the Hillary speech and READ THE WHOLE THING.
Here, I will help you: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[GodHelpUsAll2]

95. How was Kerry to know.......

that Bush would just say OK, time to invade? Well let's look at that.

Is Bush the same guy who stole the 2000 election and made a complete spectacle out of it all along the way?

Is Bush the one who almost immediately commenced to draining the surplus with his "tax cuts"?

Is Bush the same one that campaigned as a uniter not a divider then immediately proceeded to divide the country?

Is Bush the one who sat looking stupid while planes were crashing into the WTC then jumped on air force one and ran and hid?

Is Bush's cabinet the same one's who said "who could have known they would take planes and use them as missiles against us" after a PDB that said Bin Laden (sp?) determined to strike inside the US?

Do I need to go on? Now ask yourself. How dimwitted do you have to be to NOT know that NONE of the people in this administration, especially the president can be trusted to do "the right thing"?

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Absolutely they were lying

Everyone knew damn well that Saddam Hussein was in a box and harmless after 1996, with respect to WMD. The rest was realpolitik and shadow play, at the cost of 1 million Iraqi lives, most children under five. Iraq policy has been disastrous and murderous in this country for many, many, many years. The Bush lunatics just exacerbated an already horrendous slughter perpetrated by the US government apparatchiks, Clinton and his cohort of "it was all worth it" Madeline Albrights among them.

[Telly Savalas]

66. Change party to the Greens and hand the only viable opposition to the GOP

over to the hawks?

It's not like it was only a tiny cadre of Kucinich supporters that were anti-war Democrats. While 29 Democratics Senators voted for the Iraq War Resolution, 21 voted against which certainly isn't an insignificant minority. In the House it was the anti-IWR Democrats that outnumbered the pro-war ones 126 to 81. So in total, more Democrats voted against the war in Iraq than voted for it. Let's not forget that.

[ck4829]

68. And when Clinton wanted to go to war with Iraq

Guess who opposed him?

The GOP, that's who.

[CWebster]

70. Yes.

With their fingers raised to ride the bloodthirsty nationalistic winds for a pound of terrorist flesh post 911.

[GreenArrow]

71. yep.

.

[Alien8ed]

79. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics....

In late 2000, and through the late Spring of 2001, ships carrying North Korean weapons were intercepted. In one notable and thoroughly reported instance, a load of bagged concrete material was loaded on top of North Korean missile parts. It was claimed by the crew and the ship's captain that the shipment was bound for Iraq.

Many shady things happen in the world. Some of them may happen at sea. Anyone who wants to can claim in perfect sincerity that such a shipment was a deception by somebody else, or that it was indeed ordered and paid for by Saddam Hussein.

The North Korean missile parts being new, and not generally available on e-Bay, tends to limit the useful list of suspects, however.

But my own point is simple: It was that well-publicized seizure at sea and several other shipments of somewhat similar or equally questionable nature that caused a great many people to wonder just what was the truth of the matter.

George Tenet wrote a letter which has also been published, which added his comments to Hans Blix's estimate of Iraq's negligible nefarious capabilities.

But some capability could well have existed, given the monkey-business that was taking place.

And so, it was thought PRUDENT to INSPECT those sites which were considered questionable.

The statements of many legislators upheld their votes, accordingly.

The Iraqis agreed, PROVIDED that clean reports would lift Sanctions.

And THAT was where the whole freight train came off the rails.

There was "illicit" activity taking place, BUT it often involved rebuilding infrastructure destroyed during the Gulf War.

There were weapons being shipped, BUT no proof that any were ever delivered or received.

Statements made regarding support for inspections were sometimes overblown, and occasionally flat-out wrong. But the critical element was the approval of an intended back-up that was installed as a threat and a bluff, to try to force Iraq to get the whole, damnable Sanctions mes over with, "by telling the truth" - or else.

Truth is very subjective. It is even more subjective in territory formerly owned by the Persian Empire.

And if nothing else, the entire fiasco should serve as a lesson in how threats can backfire.

[CWebster]

83. The truth is politicized

when all politicians bow to AIPAC.

After all, what was it Bush kept harping on about--how Saddam was supporting Palestinian terrorists? This is never weighed in the context of the Israeli Occupation and the state terrorism and damnable lies of Israel. It is the taboo subject in American politics because all politicians bow to AIPAC.

[Viking12]

80. Snopes

"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." "

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[B Calm]

88. Thank you Snopes for the truth

[Media_Lies_Daily]

87. Most of them, excluding the rightwing Dems, were acting on what they....

...believed were factual inputs in the National Intelligence Estimate that was distributed to all members of Congress. What they didn't know at the time was the way in which the facts had been "fixed" to indicate that Iraq had WMDs. They really didn't know that the whole thing was a pack of lies.

But now they do, and so do a growing number of GOP Congresspeople who are starting to get as pissed as we are.

[The Straight Story]

89. Gore and others thought saddam was a threat and needed to go

Was it lying or was the intel bad? I don't think Gore was lying, I just think he had bad intel as did many others.

[Sgent]

90. The intel said

That Saddam had WMD -- confirmed by Clinton, Gore, and *.

That being said, I don't think Gore (nor Clinton obviously) were prepared to do a unilateral invasion.

The WMD intel was the same for all three, the difference is in what they did with it.

What this points to IMHO, is an incompetent CIA, rather than lying pols (about the existance of WMD in Iraq). That doesn't make Bush's war right, and there is plently to hate him for, but his saying that WMD existed in Iraq wasn't one of them.

[LynnTheDem]

94. "incompetent CIA"? "Intel said Saddam had WMD"? Bullshit.

The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0210-02.htm

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong

The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans

The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.h...

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9?language=printer

CIA's October 2002 NIE:

-Unmanned aircraft
" ... The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

bushit:

-"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

CIA's October 2002 NIE:

-WMD
"We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs."

bushit:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly"

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."

"We know where they are."

CIA's October 2002 NIE:

-Nuclear program
"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."

bushit:

"Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Most sentient Americans (ie no rightwingnuts) know that those "winnebagos of death" were just what the Iraqis and the UK experts and the DoD and DIA said they were for; artillery weather balloons. Which are not illegal and have never been illegal for Iraq to have.

Even the US State Dept disagreed about them being weapons labs;
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/26/1056449368283.html?oneclick=true

WHO kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq before they could finish their work work, which needed another 60-90 days? The CIA? NO.

US Public Want to Give UN Inspectors More Time

Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A23564-2003Jan21



And gee, how about them "Iraq-al Qaeda" links...LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE;

Intelligence reports undercut US claims of Iraq-Qaeda link
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8568.htm

In the judgement of the JIC there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism."
http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/ods020308.pdf

"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing."
http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/ricketts020322.pdf

Jack Straw; In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida."
http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/straw020325.pd

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. (al Qaeda & Iraq)"
-Rumsfeld
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,10975887-1702,00.html

Sky News (London): "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?"

Bush: "I can't make that claim.'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447698

Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/983821/posts

Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Wolfowitz: Iraq Was Not Involved In 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, No Ties To Al-Qaeda
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors;

"Don't Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

"What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of that. (Iraq links to al Qaeda) And the answer is: I haven't.” -British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who supports U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq.
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.story

British Intelligence agencies, MI6 and MI5

A dossier prepared by the two agencies “showed no discernible links between Iraq and al-Qaida,”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403

Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence;

“the CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.”
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=800

The White House’s own publication, A Decade of Defiance and Deception, makes no mention of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

The 2002 congressional joint intelligence committee’s report on the Sept. 11 attacks revealed that the Bush administration had no evidence to support its claim that Saddam’s government was supporting al-Qaeda.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150

According to a "top secret British document", quoted by the BBC "there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The BBC said the leak came from intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war." (quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials

Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm

Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and…

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden|s network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1EF83E5C0C718CDDAB0894DB404482

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14056-2002Oct24

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
-Richard Clarke, former terrorism chief under bush.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Iraq-al Qaeda ties have not been found

Bush administration hyped sketchy and false evidence to push for war
The Bush administration’s claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda — one of the administration’s central arguments for a pre-emptive war — appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration’s claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam’s links with al Qaeda, and several key parts of the administration’s case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/nation/8101079.htm

Iraq and al Qaeda: What Evidence?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23816

bush's own hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. David Kay;

David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link, as being "evidence free."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda

Israeli intelligence (the Moussad)

“According to Israeli intelligence, Palestinians are still not connected to the global terror network, and neither is Iraq.”
http://www.haaretz.com /

bush's second and final hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. Charles Dueffler;

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, no capability since 1991, no evidence of ties to al Qaeda, no serious threat;
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583023.html?from=storylhs

OFFICIAL VERDICT: WHITE HOUSE MISLED WORLD OVER SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIES
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0617-03.htm

No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911

"CIA Review Finds No Evidence Saddam Had Ties to Islamic Terrorists"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm

bush LIED. And LIED and LIED and LIED. And then he KICKED the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq and invaded.

War of aggression.

"Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments." -Republican Party Platform, 2000
http://www.twosense.org/articles.php?id=104

[electron_blue]

92. I dunno, but they sure as heck jumped onboard w/o using their brains

The Dems aren't angels, either. I think lying has occurred on both sides. Well, lying, or looking the other way. And taking other people's word for it rather than reading a report themself.

[dsc]

93. There is a massive difference between what they said and what Bush said

Bush and Blair talked about mushroom clouds and 45 minute delivery via drones. Everyone believed that Saddam had WMD to some extent. Even war opponents, including Kucinich, acknowledged that belief. I literally no of not one politician of any strip who stated that Saddam had no WMD and no WMD program. I think Senator Clinton's statement is worse than Kerry's but both state what was the accepted reading of intelligence at the time. Bush and his minions, on the other hand, went way beyond that by stating that Saddam had a working nuke program and could have a nuke in a matter of a few years. That tubes he bought could only be used for that program, and other similar lies and exaggerations.